Should we allow drone strikes on American soil?

So Eric Holder in a recent Congressional hearing has left the door open to preforming a drone strike against terrorists on American soil in an "extraordinary circumstance."

From CNN: "Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.

He began to winnow the list of those possible extraordinary circumstances Wednesday. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect 'sitting at a cafe' if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.

'No,' Holder replied."

Given the fact that there are people out there who want to kill us, who want to die for their cause, and who label themselves as an enemy to America, do you think that they Attorney General makes a valid point? Might there be some circumstance where a drone strike is the best option to prevent even more loss of life including that of law enforcement? Is he just plain wrong and this can't be permitted at all? As Senator Paul is now filibustering on the Senate floor and making the point, is there zero room for a lethal military/law enforcement drone strike on an individual? Might there still be a comparison with the use of lethal force by a police officer to a person that is known to be armed, dangerous, and looking to kill?

It's easy to be against war, but being against war is meaningless unless there's some way to nullify the causes of war.

I've seen numbskulls walking around with placards proclaiming "No More War." Okay. Fine. But think about what that means. Oppressed people would have to resign themselves to eternal oppression. People whose land is occupied by a foreign force would become an instant colony.

Negotiation instead of war? You can only negotiate when there are common perceptions and values, which is never going to happen.

Certainly our civilization has the potential to evolve past the caveman mentality of 'might makes right' and that bloodshed is the correct response to conflict. Your attitude of war's acceptance is just as much a part of the problem as discovering peaceful resolution.

It has nothing to do with "Might makes right." Where did that come from? Not from anything I have said here.

It has to do with real differences and disagreements. It has to do with differing perceptions, for instance, which will only go away with a homogenized world, but if the price of peace is homogeneity, a lot of us think that's too high a price to pay.

You want to end war? First of all educate yourself about its causes. "Might" may win wars, but it usually isn't the cause of the conflict. Even a mighty nation doesn't want to risk war unless the goal is somehow important to it.

War Is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means.

And in a variation of confirming the consequent, policy is merely war by other means.

But conflicts are often about real differences between groups. Because these differences often are differences over attitudes and not facts, they are intractable and not really subject to rational discussion or negotiation. The Palestinian-Israeli thing for example.

I am not so concerned about the differences or disagreements between peoples (actually it is in reality the differences between governments/those in power) but how one or both sides comes to the conclusion that bloodshed is necessary. I don't believe a state of homogeneity is necessary to ensure peace but rather an equal appreciation of ideals like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we were to eliminate religion and systems of government that covertly (America) or overtly (North Korea) disregarded the best interests of humankind we would move much closer to eliminating this messy affair of war.

The outcome of war is at best a temporary solution as history has demonstrated.

I am not so concerned about the differences or disagreements between peoples (actually it is in reality the differences between governments/those in power) but how one or both sides comes to the conclusion that bloodshed is necessary.

It's not so much that bloodshed is necessary as it is that they reach an impasse over an issue neither side can see a way to compromise on. Or else one side has decided to take an action (example: Hitler deciding to claim Poland, France, and Russia). Those people decided bloodshed was necessary to stop Hitler. In the end, it took the willingness of first Britain and then the United States to shed their people's blood. This despite neither one actually having a dog in the fight, as the saying goes. They just looked further down the road and asked themselves "What's next if we don't do something?"

Like I said before, interests and desires and needs are often in conflict, and thus war will always be with us.

If you want nations to take into account the interests of humankind, how do you think that will ever happen when even a freely and democratically elected leader's #1 task is to guard and further the interests of HIS folk, not humankind's?